(Topic ID: 118147)

New WPPR system is out


By ryanwanger

4 years ago



Topic Stats

  • 242 posts
  • 46 Pinsiders participating
  • Latest reply 4 years ago by desertT1
  • Topic is favorited by 3 Pinsiders

You

Linked Games

No games have been linked to this topic.

    Topic Gallery

    There have been 2 images uploaded to this topic. (View topic image gallery).

    wppr.jpg
    image.jpg

    There are 242 posts in this topic. You are on page 5 of 5.
    #201 4 years ago

    I was just looking at this. Not sure if I am following or are the numbers reversed.

    From site:

    3 STRIKES:
    2 players: 5 rounds
    3-4 players: 8 rounds
    5-8 players: 11 rounds
    9-16 players: 14 rounds
    17-32 players: 17 rounds
    33-64 players: 20 rounds
    65-128 players: 23 rounds
    129-256 players: 26 rounds

    Shouldn't the 2 players need to play 26 rounds and the 129+ players only have to play 5 rounds to max TGP.

    #202 4 years ago

    It's the longest path for any one player. In strike (knockout) events the maximum number of possible rounds is what we list. Assuming each round is 1 game played per match you can't artificially create more rounds as players will be eliminated during the strike process.

    #203 4 years ago

    Ultimately I think you will need to define a list of acceptable formats, since that will reduce your variables. I can't help but think like a technical troubleshooter (by trade and it's in my blood), and rule #1 is to eliminate random variables. You will make life much easier for many people if IFPA just bites the bullet and adopts a uniform list of accepted formats. Of course, the list can change and grow over time, but if you want to eliminate shenanigans related to gaming formats, it would be a good idea.

    #204 4 years ago
    Quoted from TomGWI:

    I was just looking at this. Not sure if I am following or are the numbers reversed.
    From site:
    3 STRIKES:
    2 players: 5 rounds
    3-4 players: 8 rounds
    5-8 players: 11 rounds
    9-16 players: 14 rounds
    17-32 players: 17 rounds
    33-64 players: 20 rounds
    65-128 players: 23 rounds
    129-256 players: 26 rounds
    Shouldn't the 2 players need to play 26 rounds and the 129+ players only have to play 5 rounds to max TGP.

    The 5 rounds for 2 players is the maximum # of meaningful games they'll play, or 20% TGP. The table isn't the # of rounds to get max TGP

    #205 4 years ago

    Probably... But for now we're going to keep letting organizers be creative as our game allows us to run a ton of different formats with different motivations behind the kind of situations it puts players in.

    The idea that golf is 4 - 18 hole rounds per tournament, tennis is always a bracket and go tournament, as a player I simply enjoy all the variable formats far too much to give up the ghost ... Yet

    #206 4 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    Probably... But for now we're going to keep letting organizers be creative as our game allows us to run a ton of different formats with different motivations behind the kind of situations it puts players in.

    I really enjoy experiencing a variety of formats and experimenting with new formats, both as a player and an organizer. I appreciate that IFPA allows this and hope the policy will continue!

    #207 4 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    Probably... But for now we're going to keep letting organizers be creative as our game allows us to run a ton of different formats with different motivations behind the kind of situations it puts players in.
    The idea that golf is 4 - 18 hole rounds per tournament, tennis is always a bracket and go tournament, as a player I simply enjoy all the variable formats far too much to give up the ghost ... Yet

    A list of appoved formats doesn't necessarily need to be a short list. You could easily have dozens of different approved formats, each with an ID to be entered on the results submission page for easy identification. I'm sure there are a lot of people out there that would be happy to help you too. You could have some people start compiling lists of potential formats for you to select from and set up some sort of process for submitting new ideas.

    #208 4 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    It's the longest path for any one player. In strike (knockout) events the maximum number of possible rounds is what we list. Assuming each round is 1 game played per match you can't artificially create more rounds as players will be eliminated during the strike process.

    Quoted from Snailman:

    The 5 rounds for 2 players is the maximum # of meaningful games they'll play, or 20% TGP. The table isn't the # of rounds to get max TGP

    Thanks.

    #209 4 years ago
    Quoted from TomGWI:

    3 STRIKES:
    2 players: 5 rounds
    3-4 players: 8 rounds
    5-8 players: 11 rounds
    9-16 players: 14 rounds
    17-32 players: 17 rounds
    33-64 players: 20 rounds
    65-128 players: 23 rounds
    129-256 players: 26 rounds

    Josh, is this definitely correct? On Sunday, I was in a 3 strikes tourney run by Brackelope. The number of players was in the 20s. I made it to the final two, (we both entered with 1 strike) and then we both got to 2 strikes - but when it was over, I only played 12 games total. (I did have a bye one round).

    Wouldn't we have had to hit the max number of games in that situation? A 3 strike tournament of 20 players can end in as few as 9 games*, and the tournament I just played ended in 12, so giving credit for 17 is not always correct. Can you show the "math" for longest path through a three strike tournament - one that would last 17 rounds? And, even if such a path does exist, why not just count the number of actual rounds played, instead of the hypothetical?

    * If my math is correct...all players can alternate winning and losing for the first four rounds. Now everyone is still alive, but has 2 losses. Round 5 knocks out half the field - down to 10 players. Round 6 takes us to 5 players. Round 7, someone gets a bye, and we're down to 3. Round 8 someone gets a bye and we're down to 2. Round 9 crowns the winner.

    #210 4 years ago
    Quoted from ryanwanger:

    Josh, is this definitely correct?

    Personally I have no freaking idea

    I know that we got some help from Bowen and from Isaac at Brackelope with respect to the longest path. The biggest problem with the strikes format is that the longest path is literally such a long shot of actually happening that it does end up giving out a bunch of free unplayed rounds.

    Here were some of Isaac's notes, but I'm not sure what they mean:
    r = remaining players
    r = p
    roundCount = strikes + 1
    while( r > 1) {
    r = ceil( r / 2 )
    roundCount++}

    Perhaps Isaac or Bowen can chime in with how the math works.

    The problem with counting the number of actual rounds played is that you get into a situation where it's in a player's best interest to intentionally lose a match or two at the end, strictly for increasing the TGP value by adding in those additional actual rounds played.

    The proposals that we're looking into are either:

    A) Determining an average number of rounds for each strike, for each player count and going with that - this would be through having the Brackelope guys run 1,000,000+ simulations at various player counts and just picking that number

    B) Using the actual number of rounds played + however many strikes the winner has leftover. This helps to solve the problem of someone looking to lose intentionally to increase the number of rounds.

    There's a similar issue with bracket tournaments when a 9th player adds a 4th round of play, versus only 3 rounds of play for 8 players. The chances of that 4th round of play being 'meaningful' is only 2 out of 9 (I think) assuming the eventual winner of the tournament was the 8th or 9th seed that had to play that extra round. I'm interested in cleaning this up a bit too to help spread the value between say a 9 player bracket and a 16 player bracket where there's a 100% chance the winner plays 4 rounds in a 16 player field, but only a 22% chance the winner plays 4 rounds in a 9 player field.

    This is all 2016 stuff that we'll spend the rest of the year analyzing.

    #211 4 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    Personally I have no freaking idea
    I know that we got some help from Bowen and from Isaac at Brackelope with respect to the longest path. The biggest problem with the strikes format is that the longest path is literally such a long shot of actually happening that it does end up giving out a bunch of free unplayed rounds.
    Here were some of Isaac's notes, but I'm not sure what they mean:
    r = remaining players
    r = p
    roundCount = strikes + 1
    while( r > 1) {
    r = ceil( r / 2 )
    roundCount++}
    Perhaps Isaac or Bowen can chime in with how the math works.
    The problem with counting the number of actual rounds played is that you get into a situation where it's in a player's best interest to intentionally lose a match or two at the end, strictly for increasing the TGP value by adding in those additional actual rounds played.
    The proposals that we're looking into are either:
    A) Determining an average number of rounds for each strike, for each player count and going with that - this would be through having the Brackelope guys run 1,000,000+ simulations at various player counts and just picking that number
    B) Using the actual number of rounds played + however many strikes the winner has leftover. This helps to solve the problem of someone looking to lose intentionally to increase the number of rounds.
    There's a similar issue with bracket tournaments when a 9th player adds a 4th round of play, versus only 3 rounds of play for 8 players. The chances of that 4th round of play being 'meaningful' is only 2 out of 9 (I think) assuming the eventual winner of the tournament was the 8th or 9th seed that had to play that extra round. I'm interested in cleaning this up a bit too to help spread the value between say a 9 player bracket and a 16 player bracket where there's a 100% chance the winner plays 4 rounds in a 16 player field, but only a 22% chance the winner plays 4 rounds in a 9 player field.
    This is all 2016 stuff that we'll spend the rest of the year analyzing.

    Thanks for the reply. The scenario where intentionally losing could be helpful is definitely a consideration, though if it were me, the point difference between 1st place and 2nd place is so large that I wouldn't risk taking second place just to increase the value of the tournament by 4% (and risk taking 2nd place money). Kudos to the player who has the guts to do that.

    Giving credit for the longest path specifically in a strikeout tournament (if, as you say, the longest path is truly a longshot) is much worse in my opinion. I'm *heavily* encouraged to run strikeout tournaments. The tournament I was in last Sunday...I played 12 games, and it could have been only 11 games if one person had swept when it got down to 2. We got credit for 5 extra games...that's a difference of the winners path through a double elimination bracket for a similarly sized tournament.

    I've run four tournaments this year, all with between 6 and 15 players...and all have run about the same length of time. My TGP: 60%, 20%, 32%, 28%. Guess which one was a strikeout? The other 3 were formats with no elimination - everyone played the same amount of games.

    It's definitely hard to make everything equal, but as it is currently, I can't help but be tempted to run strikeouts exclusively.

    #212 4 years ago

    wait - shouldn't Tournament Directors be submitting with the actual # of rounds played? i have only submitted one tournament under WPPR 5.X but i used the ACTUAL rounds played, not the TGP Guideline.

    i maxed out Meaningful Games Played in any event, so it doesn't make a difference, but i would like clarification for future submissions.

    #213 4 years ago
    Quoted from ryanwanger:

    I've run four tournaments this year, all with between 6 and 15 players...and all have run about the same length of time. My TGP: 60%, 20%, 32%, 28%. Guess which one was a strikeout? The other 3 were formats with no elimination - everyone played the same amount of games.

    It's definitely hard to make everything equal, but as it is currently, I can't help but be tempted to run strikeouts exclusively.

    This is the biggest reason why Strike tournaments are up for review this year.

    The other thing we will be considering is the value of a 3-player or 4-player game played (Match play style) as it compares to head to head games, or single games played. There's a similar issue with time depending on the number of machines available where we don't want to see PAPA style finals go away because those 4 player games take longer than a head-to-head match, but are valued the same as the single piece of game data that it is.

    These are definitely two areas where I think we can drill down to make a better WPPR formula, it's just a question of taking the time to see what other trends we spot with respect to formats that people are running. Only huge exploits will be dealt with immediately, but other issues will be dealt with at the start of the year like we normally do.

    #214 4 years ago
    Quoted from monty-:

    wait - shouldn't Tournament Directors be submitting with the actual # of rounds played? i have only submitted one tournament under WPPR 5.X but i used the ACTUAL rounds played, not the TGP Guideline.

    i maxed out Meaningful Games Played in any event, so it doesn't make a difference, but i would like clarification for future submissions.

    We count the longest path regardless of the number of meaningful games the winner actually played.

    A few real world examples:

    - Keith Elwin at PAPA18 won the A Division championship after 2 games in the final round, but all 3 games played were counted as "meaningful" regardless of the fact that Keith didn't need to play that game.

    - Any head-to-head round that is a best of 5 counts as 5 games regardless of whether the match went 3-0, 3-1 or 3-2. Again it's a situation where if someone like Keith wins 3-0 he could play those next 2 games, but they aren't going to impact the result of the match.

    - Pingolf formats where a player could lock in their win with a few holes to go based on how big of a lead they have. While those last few holes could be meaningless as the tournament has already been decided, they are still counted as "meaningful" games played.

    The strikes/knockout format is similar. The TGP guideline is the longest potential path for a player to take to win the tournament, regardless of the actual number of rounds played that happened.

    #215 4 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    We count the longest path regardless of the number of meaningful games the winner actually played.
    A few real world examples:
    - Keith Elwin at PAPA18 won the A Division championship after 2 games in the final round, but all 3 games played were counted as "meaningful" regardless of the fact that Keith didn't need to play that game.
    - Any head-to-head round that is a best of 5 counts as 5 games regardless of whether the match went 3-0, 3-1 or 3-2. Again it's a situation where if someone like Keith wins 3-0 he could play those next 2 games, but they aren't going to impact the result of the match.
    - Pingolf formats where a player could lock in their win with a few holes to go based on how big of a lead they have. While those last few holes could be meaningless as the tournament has already been decided, they are still counted as "meaningful" games played.
    The strikes/knockout format is similar. The TGP guideline is the longest potential path for a player to take to win the tournament, regardless of the actual number of rounds played that happened.

    thanks for clarifying. i understood to use the longest path with respect to each round (ie. best of 5 counts as a full 5 games, regardless of what is played out) but did not realize i was to be using the longest path with respect to the overall potential # of rounds in the entire tournament. that makes sense.

    like i said it does not impact my last submission which maxed out MGP (26+) in any event.

    for the record it was a 42 player tournament, 3 Strikes, Best 2/3. we played 14 rounds vs 20 as dictated by the TGP guidelines.

    #216 4 years ago
    Quoted from monty-:

    for the record it was a 42 player tournament, 3 Strikes, Best 2/3. we played 14 rounds vs 20 as dictated by the TGP guidelines.

    Awesome. How long did that take?

    #217 4 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    The other thing we will be considering is the value of a 3-player or 4-player game played (Match play style) as it compares to head to head games, or single games played. There's a similar issue with time depending on the number of machines available where we don't want to see PAPA style finals go away because those 4 player games take longer than a head-to-head match, but are valued the same as the single piece of game data that it is.

    I've wondered about this myself.

    I've wanted to do four player groups in tournaments, but it takes twice as long so you can only play half as many games in the same period of time. I *love* the idea of using the notion of time to help normalize TGP.

    So with 24 players you could have:
    - 12 heads up matches would be 24 games played (1 match is two complete games of pinball...your game, and your opponents game)
    - 8 three player matches would be 24 games played
    - 6 four player games would also be 24 games played.

    So, all three of those tournaments would last the same amount of time...24 games played. Yes, each player is playing less total games in four player matches, but they're defeating multiple opponents per game. Factoring in number of opponents to normalize for time, you could do:

    Heads up game: 4% TGP
    Three player game: 6% TGP
    Four player game: 8% TGP

    With that change, all 3 scenarios would grade out the same: 48% TGP.

    #218 4 years ago
    Quoted from ryanwanger:

    I've wanted to do four player groups in tournaments, but it takes twice as long so you can only play half as many games in the same period of time. I *love* the idea of using the notion of time to help normalize TGP.

    So with 24 players you could have:
    - 12 heads up matches would be 24 games played (1 match is two complete games of pinball...your game, and your opponents game)
    - 8 three player matches would be 24 games played
    - 6 four player games would also be 24 games played.

    So, all three of those tournaments would last the same amount of time...24 games played. Yes, each player is playing less total games in four player matches, but they're defeating multiple opponents per game. Factoring in number of opponents to normalize for time, you could do:

    Heads up game: 4% TGP
    Three player game: 6% TGP
    Four player game: 8% TGP

    With that change, all 3 scenarios would grade out the same: 48% TGP.

    Have you been copying and pasting from the private IFPA Country Directors forum?

    The other piece of the puzzle is how qualifying games or games where you aren't playing anyone directly, and whether those should be less meaningful.

    That would help promote events where you are directly playing other opponents, and limit the ability for tournaments to rack up games played where everyone simply 'plays every machine once' sort of thing.

    We have almost 9 months to figure out our next steps, but I imagine something in the neighborhood of what you're talking about will be the direction we end up taking.

    Those that are not happy with us continuing to tweaks things as the years roll on . . . be prepared to continue to be miserable

    #219 4 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    Have you been copying and pasting from the private IFPA Country Directors forum?
    The other piece of the puzzle is how qualifying games or games where you aren't playing anyone directly, and whether those should be less meaningful.
    That would help promote events where you are directly playing other opponents, and limit the ability for tournaments to rack up games played where everyone simply 'plays every machine once' sort of thing.
    We have almost 9 months to figure out our next steps, but I imagine something in the neighborhood of what you're talking about will be the direction we end up taking.
    Those that are not happy with us continuing to tweaks things as the years roll on . . . be prepared to continue to be miserable

    You must have a bunch of smart folks over on that directors forum.

    2% for solo games.

    #220 4 years ago
    Quoted from ryanwanger:

    Awesome. How long did that take?

    not sure if that was a sarcastic remark, but it took an entire day - ~8 hours with ample break time. there aren't many large tournament events in Canada so i have quite a few out-of-towners. nobody wants to fly in or drive 4-6 hours only to get knocked out quickly. players want a full day event. maybe that's not your thing.

    utilization/efficiency is maximized given it's on location at a barcade with 20 pins. there is not a lot of waiting around.

    it's a long day but the format certainly shows that the cream rises to the top...

    #221 4 years ago
    Quoted from monty-:

    it's a long day but the format certainly shows that the cream rises to the top...

    I was with you until you got to this part.

    #222 4 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    The other thing we will be considering is the value of a 3-player or 4-player game played (Match play style) as it compares to head to head games, or single games played. There's a similar issue with time depending on the number of machines available where we don't want to see PAPA style finals go away because those 4 player games take longer than a head-to-head match, but are valued the same as the single piece of game data that it is.

    I'm very glad to hear this. We've seen the 4 player match play format pretty much disappear so far this year because of the time it takes for each game.

    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    That would help promote events where you are directly playing other opponents, and limit the ability for tournaments to rack up games played where everyone simply 'plays every machine once' sort of thing.

    You lost me here though - Why would everyone playing each machine once be a bad thing?

    #223 4 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    The idea behind WPPR v5.0 is that the more games played as part of a tournament, the better chance players have to display their skill. The better chance players have to display their skill, the better those results should reflect to skill level of the players participating.

    One thing I think about this is that it's more "legit" in the result, but I feel like a lot of us like the fact that we can win a tourney against good folks in a format that is just a one off. I know in a best of 7 I would always lose to a top 100 player, while in a launch party tourney I have a chance. Either way you still had to produce, and the randomness of pinball is part of the fun so minimizing it makes sense but maybe there's a middle ground for things especially like launch parties just so TDs don't try and make them super long just to maximize WPPRs?

    #224 4 years ago
    Quoted from EricR:

    You lost me here though - Why would everyone playing each machine once be a bad thing?

    It's not a bad thing, but I personally love the idea of situational play which you really only find in heads up or group play.

    There is an easier path to meaningful games played where you can simply let everyone play every game, especially if they are allowed to play by themselves, and we would hate to see other formats fall by the wayside because there's additional effort required by the organizer to reach similar TGP levels.

    #225 4 years ago
    Quoted from genex:

    One thing I think about this is that it's more "legit" in the result, but I feel like a lot of us like the fact that we can win a tourney against good folks in a format that is just a one off. I know in a best of 7 I would always lose to a top 100 player, while in a launch party tourney I have a chance. Either way you still had to produce, and the randomness of pinball is part of the fun so minimizing it makes sense but maybe there's a middle ground for things especially like launch parties just so TDs don't try and make them super long just to maximize WPPRs?

    This is exactly what the WPPR v5.0 system is all about.

    The reason why you have a chance against someone like Keith Elwin in a shorter match is because of the volatility of that result. The example I used a bunch when the IFPA Directors were discussing this path was the likelihood of my wife defeating me in a tournament, and the longer you extended a match, the better chance I had of winning (because of my skill).

    The point system has been changed to reflect that. A win over Keith Elwin in a best of 7 is worth more than a single game win, because that best of 7 was a better test of skill.

    The middle ground you speak of is completely in the hands of the tournament organizers. The idea that every tournament has to grade out to 100% TGP wasn't something that I thought we would be seeing, but rather a continuation of these wildly different TGP level events.

    I'm still hoping the natural bounce back of organizers settling in with the new system will land us back in that place where you'll see a nice mix, but the idea of subsidizing formats that no doubt have a lesser test of skill with additional WPPR points just to keep those formats around isn't something we're interested in doing.

    #226 4 years ago
    Quoted from EricR:

    You lost me here though - Why would everyone playing each machine once be a bad thing?

    shhhhhh. I think he'd talking about super league-type scenerios

    #227 4 years ago

    I like 5.0 more than 4.0 ( the occurrence of 5 people tournaments getting 25 points was way off ). The one thing i really liked about 4.0 though is the certanty of the set base points for a tournament. With 5.0 setting base points directly equals number of people. It would be nice to get back to having a tournament have a known base points ahead of time and adjust base points based on overall rating numbers
    -for example under 5,000 total rating points of all the players combined rating points, not counting rating under 1285.71 would divide base points by 200%
    - 5-10,000 total rating points would reduce base points by 150%
    - 10-20,000 rating points would reduce base points by 100%
    - 20-40 rating points would reduce base points by 50 %
    - 40-60 rating points would not change base points
    - 60,000 - 80,000 rating points would increase base points by 50%
    - 80,000 - 100,000 would increase base points by 75%.
    - 100,000 plus would increase base points by 100%

    Have all tournaments set at 16 base points ( weekend weekday, doesn't matter) and then adjust base for total rating points and then grade with TGP.

    Huge # tournaments would reach the 32 base points, small tournaments would start at about 4 base points and would need to play 25 games to achieve all of them.

    This might not be practical for various reasons but i figured i'd throw it out there so it stops bouncing around in my head.

    #228 4 years ago
    Quoted from fna_royam:

    I like 5.0 more than 4.0 ( the occurrence of 5 people tournaments getting 25 points was way off ). The one thing i really liked about 4.0 though is the certanty of the set base points for a tournament. With 5.0 setting base points directly equals number of people. It would be nice to get back to having a tournament have a known base points ahead of time and adjust base points based on overall rating numbers
    -for example under 5,000 total rating points of all the players combined rating points, not counting rating under 1285.71 would divide base points by 200%
    - 5-10,000 total rating points would reduce base points by 150%
    - 10-20,000 rating points would reduce base points by 100%
    - 20-40 rating points would reduce base points by 50 %
    - 40-60 rating points would not change base points
    - 60,000 - 80,000 rating points would increase base points by 50%
    - 80,000 - 100,000 would increase base points by 75%.
    - 100,000 plus would increase base points by 100%

    Have all tournaments set at 16 base points ( weekend weekday, doesn't matter) and then adjust base for total rating points and then grade with TGP.

    Huge # tournaments would reach the 32 base points, small tournaments would start at about 4 base points and would need to play 25 games to achieve all of them.

    This might not be practical for various reasons but i figured i'd throw it out there so it stops bouncing around in my head.

    The biggest problem I have with this is that it's exactly what we do with the Ratings portion of our Tournament Value Adjustment (TVA). It would be a little redundant IMO to base the base value off of the IFPA Player Ratings, and then adjust the value of the boost in the tournament off the same metric.

    For those not familiar with the entire formula:

    - Up to 32 points available from Base Value
    - Up to 50 points available through the IFPA Ratings values of the players participating
    - Up to 25 points available through the WPPR Rank of the players participating

    The IFPA Ratings metric already has the potential to count for 47% of the overall value of the tournament, making it the 'most important part' already.

    An idea I've had bouncing around in my head has been to just slide things over and use the IFPA Ratings as the official ranking system for everything, but being able to say "Whoppers" is just far too entertaining to drop

    #229 4 years ago
    Quoted from monty-:

    not sure if that was a sarcastic remark, but it took an entire day - ~8 hours with ample break time. there aren't many large tournament events in Canada so i have quite a few out-of-towners. nobody wants to fly in or drive 4-6 hours only to get knocked out quickly. players want a full day event. maybe that's not your thing.
    utilization/efficiency is maximized given it's on location at a barcade with 20 pins. there is not a lot of waiting around.
    it's a long day but the format certainly shows that the cream rises to the top...

    I wasn't being sarcastic.

    #230 4 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    It would be a little redundant IMO to base the base value off of the IFPA Player Ratings, and then adjust the value of the boost in the tournament off the same metric.

    Yes i can see how that would be redundant. I was thinking in this scenario using the rating # would be an approximation of # of players and if you have a good metric why not use it twice.

    Couldn't agree more on the "Whoppers" though, love saying it, love writing it…
    Whoppers, WPPR's, Whoppers.

    #231 4 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    The other piece of the puzzle is how qualifying games or games where you aren't playing anyone directly, and whether those should be less meaningful.

    Have you also considered, for example, that formats might change the significance of the multi-player games?

    For example: if it was a knockout style tournament with 4-player groups; a format where only the lowest score on a game receives a strike might not be as meaningful as a game where the lowest three scores receive a strike. Or, if it was match-play style and only one player from each four-player group advanced to the next round (instead of the usual 2).

    #232 4 years ago
    Quoted from poopdotcom:

    Have you also considered, for example, that formats might change the significance of the multi-player games?

    For example: if it was a knockout style tournament with 4-player groups; a format where only the lowest score on a game receives a strike should not be as meaningful as a game where the lowest three scores receive a strike. Or, if it was match-play style and only one player from each four-player group advanced to the next round (instead of the usual 2).

    Definitely considered . . . but at some point we have to draw a line as to how confusing we want to make things. We're already drifting from K.I.S.S and something like this would most likely fall under tournament organizer discretion rather than it being judged differently.

    There is a difference in approaching a game needing to 'not get last' versus 'needing to win' versus 'needing to finish top 2 out of 4' that one could argue creates a different set of strategic decisions, but doesn't make that game played any less meaningful.

    I know for me that certainly happens in PAPA style finals where I'm looking to survive until the final round where I'll play more conservatively, but then start going for the win-or-go-home strategy in that last round.

    #233 4 years ago
    Quoted from genex:

    Either way you still had to produce, and the randomness of pinball is part of the fun so minimizing it makes sense but maybe there's a middle ground for things especially like launch parties just so TDs don't try and make them super long just to maximize WPPRs?

    Part of the responsibility for this falls on the players to communicate to tournament organizers what they want. I have had many, many conversations with local players about event formats or potential event formats since the switch to WPPR 5.0, and they almost universally ask for formats that maximize the tournament value. I know other local organizers I've spoken with have gotten similar feedback.

    My personal preference for most of my events is to use formats that may not be worth as much but that get everyone a lot of play and don't last forever. But I keep hearing from players that this isn't what they want. Take Sunday's event, for example. By the time we reached playoffs, everyone was tired and probably crashing after all the sugar and it was clear that everyone would have been happier with those matches being best-of-1. But I had announced it as best-of-3 because of conversations with a bunch of players who were all insistent that the extra time is worth it to make the event grade out better.

    #234 4 years ago
    Quoted from Flamethrower:

    Part of the responsibility for this falls on the players to communicate to tournament organizers what they want. I have had many, many conversations with local players about event formats or potential event formats since the switch to WPPR 5.0, and they almost universally ask for formats that maximize the tournament value. I know other local organizers I've spoken with have gotten similar feedback.
    My personal preference for most of my events is to use formats that may not be worth as much but that get everyone a lot of play and don't last forever. But I keep hearing from players that this isn't what they want. Take Sunday's event, for example. By the time we reached playoffs, everyone was tired and probably crashing after all the sugar and it was clear that everyone would have been happier with those matches being best-of-1. But I had announced it as best-of-3 because of conversations with a bunch of players who were all insistent that the extra time is worth it to make the event grade out better.

    I get this too. For league everyone plays 8 machines, and that hopefully makes it fun for everyone. I get more enjoyment when I'm doing better, but 8 iffy scores is better than picking up dog mess. But, 8 machines doesn't grade out very high. The cumulative season standings are important to many, IFPA points as well, but for all of us, it's a good excuse to get out and play.

    For the head to head events I run, it's more geared towards winning and points. We average 1/3 the players, but 1/2 the points of a league event because of the format.

    Both are fun because I like to play, but some days (like last night for me) you can lose 4 games and be done for the night. The promised number of games in league is appealing to the more casual player.

    #235 4 years ago
    Quoted from desertT1:

    The promised number of games in league is appealing to the more casual player.

    This is what I've personally favored at our Gameworks Monthly tournaments.

    Allowing everyone to casually show up and play all the games means that everyone gets the same experience. Before we did a single elimination bracket which meant half the participants were done for the night after Round 1. That meant whoever drew Zach randomly for that first match was really pleased

    The most important thing that people are hopefully starting to understand is the need to cater to your player base, and give them what they want. Without people showing up to feed the base value, it doesn't really matter what your TGP value is.

    #236 4 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    That meant whoever drew Zach randomly for that first match was really pleased

    I'm sure whoever drew you in the first round was super ecstatic as well!

    #237 4 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    The idea that every tournament has to grade out to 100% TGP wasn't something that I thought we would be seeing, but rather a continuation of these wildly different TGP level events.

    I'm still hoping the natural bounce back of organizers settling in with the new system will land us back in that place where you'll see a nice mix, but the idea of subsidizing formats that no doubt have a lesser test of skill with additional WPPR points just to keep those formats around isn't something we're interested in doing.

    Right now 1 WPPR point is 1 WPPR point regardless of how it was earned. IMO, that is where the glitch is. I think the percentages are now trying to adjust for this concept.

    I think it is clear not all tourneys are created equal. People are trying to earn points the fastest way possible, but at the same time applying those WPPR points to a ranking status of who is the best player in the state or world.

    In rated chess, the workaround for this concept is assigning ratings for various time frames. There are ratings for standard tourneys all the way down to 1-minute bullet chess. One can have a master rating in long events and a lower rating in short events. The general principle, much like in pinball, the longer a game or match is, the more likely the better player wins.

    Of course generating an entirely separate raking system based on type or duration of event, might be way too much to think about.

    I applaud what you guys are trying to do and am glad you guys are listening to constructive input.

    1 week later
    #238 4 years ago

    From my perspective, this looks like a flaw that will discourage some people from coming out to launch party tournaments that are interested in points:

    We just had a WWE launch party. There were 20 participants. I won, and received .47 points. The rules were you could try to win from 7pm - 12am with a maximum of 5 entries. No playoffs or finals.

    Now, let's look at the SUPERleague from March. "Shirley Wong" played one game of Walking Dead and got 6.5 million. She came in 180th place, yet got more IFPA points (.49) than I did for coming in 1st in the WWE tournament.

    I'm sorry, but I demonstrated considerable more skill in the WWE tournament than Shirley did playing one game of the Walking Dead and getting 6.5 million. This is discouraging to those of us that look at the IFPA as a way of charting our growth and progress as competitive pinball players.

    #239 4 years ago
    Quoted from Gusphan:

    From my perspective, this looks like a flaw that will discourage some people from coming out to launch party tournaments that are interested in points:

    This statement is flawed because a "launch party tournament" is whatever you make of it.

    If you make your "launch party tournament" - play one game take the highest score, it's simply not going to grade out well regardless of whether you get 20 players to show up, or 10,000 players to show up.

    How about running some form of playoffs? How about allowing unlimited attempts for 5 hours instead of limiting it to 5? How about counting a player's best 3 scores combined on the machine instead of just the highest score?

    The IFPA is granting organizers the power to tweak their format to help it grade out better, and it's up to the organizers to decide how far they want to push the envelope between creating a format on squeezing WPPR's out of it, or creating a format that is a more casual friendly night of hanging out and playing a game.

    #240 4 years ago

    SUPERleague looks Wong for many reasons other than good old Shirley. I wonder if the IFPA would consider putting a cap on points any single location can have in a year. One event per year was too few under 4.0 but with NewYork having so many people and the ability to just have one person play a game and then have that count towards the numbers for WPPR's the ranking will be heavily skewed towards large cities with WPPR hungry people raking up the points. i've heard some rumbling of SUPERleague changing to bi-monthly instead of monthly. At about 50 points per event that would be well over 1,000 WPPR's for that location. With a main and a side plus TVA under 4.0 a location could get about 50 points per year. Modern Pinball with the super league ( especially if they go bi-monthly ) could get around 1,200 points per year. Might not be technically feasible to do but a cap on points per location per year might be worth considering.

    #241 4 years ago

    A cap on points per location per year sends a message that too many tournaments is a bad thing, and that organizers that are willing to put in the time and effort to set up these events shouldn't be rewarded for that effort.

    Larger cities will simply have an advantage over cities that are less populated (and that was really the case under any previous WPPR system).

    We welcome smaller communities to set up custom championships for their local communities to help focus the attention of play just within that area. Working with the Buffalo crew now to create either an Upstate NY Championship, or a Buffalo City Championship . . . these kinds of tools are readily available at the IFPA for communities to use as a resource.

    As a Chicago-suburb person, I'm fighting the same battle with the number of machines, players and organizers that are downtown. I can either complain that it's unfair and try to limit what the guys downtown are allowed to do, take it upon myself and the other suburb folks to run more events (but none of want to put in the time or effort to do so), or keep doing what we're doing and create a "Chicagoland Suburb Championship" made up of all the events we happen to hold outside of the city limits.

    Currently I'm taking option 4 which is . . . don't do anything because I'm tired and lazy

    #242 4 years ago
    Quoted from fna_royam:

    SUPERleague looks Wong for many reasons other than good old Shirley. I wonder if the IFPA would consider putting a cap on points any single location can have in a year. One event per year was too few under 4.0 but with NewYork having so many people and the ability to just have one person play a game and then have that count towards the numbers for WPPR's the ranking will be heavily skewed towards large cities with WPPR hungry people raking up the points. i've heard some rumbling of SUPERleague changing to bi-monthly instead of monthly. At about 50 points per event that would be well over 1,000 WPPR's for that location. With a main and a side plus TVA under 4.0 a location could get about 50 points per year. Modern Pinball with the super league ( especially if they go bi-monthly ) could get around 1,200 points per year. Might not be technically feasible to do but a cap on points per location per year might be worth considering.

    This is why I look more at my state ranking compared to my world ranking. In Tucson we have a smaller population than Phoenix, but have a public location that is the best in the state. Points per city would be pretty evenly matched, but top players from PHX are coming down here for non-league events and tend to do well. That skews things a little by reducing the number of points available to locals, but since the guys coming down are already #1 and #2 in the state it's not really doing much more than expanding their lead. Everyone in both the Tucson area and the Phoenix area is pretty cool though, so it's a good time no matter what.

    Promoted items from the Pinside Marketplace
    From: $ 6,499.00
    Pinball Machine
    Flip N Out Pinball
    $ 12.95
    $ 22.00
    Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
    ModFather Pinball Mods
    $ 55.00
    Gameroom - Decorations
    Pinball Photos
    $ 89.95
    Cabinet - Shooter Rods
    Super Skill Shot Shop
    From: $ 14.95
    Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
    ULEKstore
    $ 19.95
    $ 69.00
    $ 16.95
    Playfield - Protection
    ULEKstore
    $ 10.95
    $ 89.99
    $ 69.99
    Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
    Lighted Pinball Mods
    $ 130.00
    Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
    Rods Mods
    From: $ 799.00
    Hardware
    CPR Playfields
    $ 10,999.00
    $ 109.99
    Lighting - Led
    Lighted Pinball Mods
    $ 27.99
    Playfield - Protection
    Lee's Parts
    $ 12,500.00
    Pinball Machine
    Great American Pinball
    $ 999.00
    Flipper Parts
    Mircoplayfields
    From: $ 25.00
    Various Other Swag
    Shoot Again Pinball
    $ 269.99
    Cabinet - Armor And Blades
    Lermods
    $ 49.00
    Gameroom - Decorations
    Pinball Photos
    $ 60.00
    There are 242 posts in this topic. You are on page 5 of 5.

    Hey there! Got a moment?

    Great to see you're enjoying Pinside! Did you know Pinside is able to run thanks to donations from our visitors? Please donate to Pinside, support the site and get anext to your username to show for it! Donate to Pinside